Can the gender gap in object manipulation skills (OMS) be reduced in third graders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In general, boys are more proficient at OMS in childhood and adolescence (Barnett et al., 2010; Butterfield et al., 2012). Although it is recognized that girls often fall behind in terms of OMS development and participation in recreational activities (Sport for Life for Women and Girls, 2016), it is too often attributed to physiology and anatomy rather than educational support and developmentally appropriate programming. A 6 week intervention/program was designed specifically for girls to combine an inclusive, supportive and encouraging learning environment with multiple opportunities to develop, practice and refine OMS. This project used a 'pre-post test' methodology to evaluate change with the girls participating (within subject design), as well as the relative change compared to the boys in the same grade (between subjects design). The research team measured the acute impact of the all-girls OMS program as well as the retention levels by doing follow up measures 2 months after the intervention concluded. Validated product and process orientated motor proficiency measurement tools such as the Test of Gross Motor Development (TGMD-3) and the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2) were utilized to ensure that any change was reliably measured. There were no significant differences between the genders at baseline. The girls showed a 21.4% improvement in OMS using the BOT2 and a 4.3% improvement when measured using the TGMD3. This study demonstrates that the gender gap in OMS can be reduced with an intentionally designed all-girls PE program taught by an elementary specialist.Acknowledgments: Alberta Government - Recreation & Physical Activity Division
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".